The Ashford Zone Blog

Apparently, Dr. Rice doesn’t read my posts here. Like this one.

Today, before the 9/11 Commission, she characterized the threats that were coming in (during the Spring and Summer of 2001) as:

"Troubling, yes. But they don’t tell us when; they don’t tell us where; they don’t tell us who; and they don’t tell us how . . . "

To which I ask (again quoting Bush’s 2003 SOTU) "Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"

Of course, it HELPS to have exact details if we can get them, but their unavailability shouldn’t deter our government from taking action.

And that’s the difference between Clinton and Bush. Clinton, in late 1999, was aware of a possible millennium attack by terrorists. He, too, was hampered by a frustrating lack of detailed information about where, when, and who would attack. But Clinton, you know, did something about it — our borders were tightened, etc. We picked up several people crossing the borders and quite possibly avoided a major terrorist attack.

The Bush Administration, on the other hand, was annoyed at the idea of "swatting flies". So — as as they sat around trying to find develop some grand fly-decimating strategy (and taking their sweet time) — we got bitten. Big time.

Sorry, kids. "We didn’t know the exact details of a specific terrorist attack" is a lame excuse for doing NOTHING.

Last one, I promise. (Well, maybe I’ll touch upon it again when Cheney and his chauffeur meet with the 9/11 commission . . .)

This, too, is a confirmation of Clarke’s allegations.

National Security Adviser Condi Rice was to speak at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. She had a major policy speech that was to address "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday."

What WERE those "threats and problems" mentioned in the speech? Mmmmmm . . .

Al Qaeda? Nope, not mentioned.

Bin Laden? Nope, not mentioned.

Islamic extremists? Nope, not mentioned.

Did the speech even mention "terrorism"? Well, yes, but only in the context of "rogue nations" (with Iraq being a specific example).

Apparently, the speech was designed to promote the missile defense system as the cornerstone of the new national security strategy.

Of course, this is all hearsay, from people who claim to have seen the speech. You see, Condi never actually delivered it (which is why the White House is saying it won’t release it). She was scheduled to deliver it . . . .

. . . . on September 11, 2001. Instead, she spent some of that day in a bunker.

Read more here.

Not intentionally of course.

Here’s the timeline which tells the story:

December 16, 2000 – Powell nominated by Bush to be Secretary of State.

December 20, 2000 – Powell meets with CIA, FBI and the State Department for the transition. "We talked about al Qaeda," Powell later admits.

January 17, 2000 – Powell testifies at his confirmation hearing. Outlining the new administration’s priorities, he talks on about 20 topics, including China, Balkans, Russia, Iran, and Iraq (saying that U.N. sanctions must be "re-energized"). Number of times "terrorism" is mentioned: twice (one time, it is lumped in with "organized crime"). Number of times al Qaeda is mentioned: zero.

Front burner, my ass.

Source

The White House is backpeddling. Which is fine. Doing the right thing . . . eventually . . . is the best we can hope for from the Bush Administration.

But here’s something that struck me as odd — today’s letter to the 9/11 Commission from the White House counsel, especially this self-serving statement:

The President has consistently stated a policy of strong support for the Commission and instructed the Executive Branch to provide unprecedented and extraordinary access to the Commission [emphasis mine]

Call me crazy, but for the past several days, the White House and Condi have been relying on "precedent" to avoid having her testify. So how can it be seriously asserted that the Exec Branch’s "unprecedented . . . access" has been "consistent"?

Interestingly, the next paragraph discusses the lack of past instances in which a sitting NSA testified in public. Again, I ask . . . has the WH access been "unprecedented" or not?

Also, did anybody catch this "catch"? In order for Rice to testify, the Commission must agree in writing not to request any more public testimony from any White House official (including Rice herself) (see page two of the letter) Mmmmmmm . . . .

[Outgoing Deputy National Security Advisor Lieutenant General Donald L. Kerrick], who stayed through the first four months of the Bush administration, said, "candidly speaking, I didn’t detect" a strong focus on terrorism. "That’s not being derogatory. It’s just a fact. I didn’t detect any activity but what Dick Clarke and the CSG [the Counterterrorism Strategy Group he chaired] were doing." General Hugh Shelton, whose term as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff began under Clinton and ended under Bush, concurred. In his view, the Bush administration moved terrorism "farther to the back burner."

As reported here. Oh, and neither of them have books out. (Yes, yes. "Obviously" Clarke — who is now richer than Bill Gates from his astounding book sales — is giving these guys a cut of his lucrative pie . . . blah blah blah)

And here‘s a nice little historical nugget. This is Judy Woodruff, reporting on CNN. The date is April 30, 2001.

"The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there’s no extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and "personalizing terrorism."

Mmmmmm. I guess Judy and/or the State Department is on Clarke’s payroll, too.